You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

Former Tekkie Town owners lose in court again

But its founders look set to continue their fight against Steinhoff.
Bernard Mostert and Braam van Huyssteen sold their 59% stake in Tekkie Town to Steinhoff in 2016 for shares valued – at the time – at R3.3bn. Image: Moneyweb

The founders and former controlling shareholders of Tekkie Town have lost their second Steinhoff-related battle in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), with last week’s unanimous ruling that overturned an earlier high court order preventing both Pepkor and Steinhoff from dealing in the Tekkie Town shares that are owned by Pepkor.

On Friday a spokesman for Steinhoff told Moneyweb: “We have read through this strong and unanimous judgment and are very happy that our appeals were upheld.” The judgment removes a restriction on Steinhoff’s ability to reorganise assets within the troubled group. It also removes a distraction facing the Pepkor management.

Read: The Tekkie Town tug-of-war continues (Apr 2019)

But it appears the Tekkie Town founders are not giving up on their war with Steinhoff.

‘Not letting up’

Former Tekkie Town CEO and co-founder Bernard Mostert told Moneyweb on Saturday: “We are not letting up and not letting go. We will get our final award from both Steinhoff and Pepkor.”

He added that the value of that award would be significantly more than the R116 million that has been offered in terms of Steinhoff’s settlement proposal, which was announced in August. The proposed award is a fraction of the R1.85 billion the Tekkie Town founders are claiming from Steinhoff and, points out Mostert, is less than the remuneration Steinhoff CEO Louis du Preez has drawn over the past three years.

In 2016 founders Mostert and Braam van Huyssteen sold their 59% stake in the highly successful shoe retail business to Steinhoff for shares valued, at the time, at R3.3 billion. In December 2017, news of widespread fraud and the resignation of former CEO Markus Jooste, saw the Steinhoff share price plunge to below R1 from around R80 at the time of the deal.

The latest ruling follows the SCA’s decision in July to reject the Tekkie Town founders’ application to appeal an interim restraint of trade, preventing them from trading certain footwear in their newly established Mr Tekkie chain.

Last week’s ruling by the SCA included damning criticisms of the lower court’s decision, describing aspects of it as “unfair” and “regrettable”.

The order handed down by the high court in April 2019 was based on a draft order submitted by the Tekkie Town founders’ legal team the previous day. The order, which the SCA said “was materially different from the order [initially] sought” by the Tekkie Town founders, was handed down without giving Steinhoff an opportunity to make submissions on it.

Reasons

Aggravating the matter from Steinhoff’s perspective was the delay in giving the reasons for the order.

“These reasons had not been given by May 10, 2019 when the appellants had filed their applications for leave to appeal,” said the SCA’s Judge Schippers. “Fairness requires that the parties – especially the losing party – should be left in no doubt as to the reasons for an order and consequently why they have won or lost.”

The SCA said the Tekkie Town founders had wrongly argued that Steinhoff controlled the legally-separate Pepkor.

Pepkor, which is 71% held by Steinhoff, has incorporated the Tekkie Town business into its Specialty division. The SCA noted that Pepkor was not a party to the founders’ legal action. It also stated that the Tekkie Town founders had alleged fraud by Steinhoff but had provided no evidence.

Mostert told Moneyweb the fact that no arrests have yet been made creates the risk of the Steinhoff saga “being diluted” to just a chapter of history.

“Steinhoff and its leadership seemingly have all the evidence in hand to assist all the authorities to enable prosecution but refuse to do so.”

Listen to Duduzile Ramela’s interview with former Tekkie Town CEO Bernard Mostert:

AUTHOR PROFILE

COMMENTS   7

Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.

SIGN IN SIGN UP

Sore loosers who signed on the dotted line and now want to unscramble the egg. Always sell for shares and cash preferably with the biggest part in cash.

They “put their foot in it” now they want to “ put their foot down”

Haha good luck to them!

All the while Mr Jooste is sipping cocktails and sundowners in Hermanus watching the Whales at play, with no worry in the world!

Biggest nitwits walking the earth.

Van Huyssteen is the same guy who publicly stated on Bruce Whitfield’s pod, that he is not angry at Jooste and does not believe he did anything wrong.

Same guy who accepted an earn-out agreement on a piece of napkin (facts).

There were no reasons to shop at Tekkie Town before. Now it’s edging into less than zero.

Hope they get nothing. Greedy fools. No one forced the sale on them. Also, if it wasn’t for Jooste’s obsession to keep the roll-up strategy going, the. Tekkie would never have been acquired. Its a garbage business. No online channel, new balance dad shoes that no one wears.

Also, can we get naspers to spin-off Takealot.

No reason why the Tekkie Town owners should be treated differently to others. They are not entitled to any preference. Just about every pension fund, RA, investment portfolio took a thrashing from the share price collapse and they think that they should get preference. They sold for shares not cash and now pay the price for overexposure to one share.

They should rather sue the Board of directors for incompetence and charge the executives who committed serious offences-no progress in 3 years now which is another indictment on the capability of the NPA.

There is one difference why they MIGHT be treated differently. They could not sell their Steinhoff shares for a certain time period. All the pension funds, RA’s etc could sell anytime. I’m not saying they are right, and yes SH probably massively overpaid, but the fact that they couldn’t convert the shares into cash makes a big difference

So, why did they sign on the dotted line.
Greed.
Serves them right.

They took equity over cash (hungry for that beloved upside), yet now its merely a massive downside – boo hoo hoo. Couldn’t have happened to nicer people!

End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

NEWSLETTERS WEB APP SHOP PORTFOLIO TOOL TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: